UN "Human Rights" Boss Equates Trump, Farage With ISIS

United Nations “human rights” boss Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein appears to be cracking up as he violently and erratically lashes out at free markets, Western voters, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, gun rights, the nation-state, British Brexit leader Nigel Farage (shown, right), Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders, Czech President Milos Zeman, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, and other targets of what appears to be his deep-seated hatred. He also blasted Western voters concerned about open borders and security for their alleged “natural prejudice.”

The controversial UN rights chief, a prince in the Islamic dictatorship ruling over Jordan, even equated mainstream Western politicians he disagrees with to the Islamic State — a terror group that, like leading members of the dictator-dominated UN “Human Rights Council,” beheads those it disagrees with. The UN official's office also posted a message on social-media wondering whether belief in free markets was an “urgent threat.” But his targets may get the last laugh as what little was left of the UN's credibility implodes.

Among others who hit back at the UN “human rights” chief was Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders of the Freedom Party, one of the main targets of Zeid's shocking harangue. “The U.N. is grotesque,” tweeted Wilders, a self-proclaimed anti-Islamization leader who polls show could end up as the prime minister of the Netherlands. “Let’s get rid of these bureaucrats.” In the United States, anti-UN sentiment is also surging, and there is even a growing movement for an #Amexit from the UN.

Speaking in The Hague, headquarters of the widely ridiculed UN “International Criminal Court” that the U.S. government has refused to join due to its “kangaroo court” nature, Zeid went on an unhinged rampage. Addressing “Wilders, his acolytes, indeed to all those like him – the populists, demagogues and political fantasists,” Zeid argued that he must be a “sort of nightmare” for them. Bombastically proclaiming himself to be the “global voice on human rights” — and further discrediting the UN's bogus vision of “human rights” in the process — the UN operative noted he was a Muslim who is “white-skinned.”

Why the color of Zeid's skin or his religion were relevant to the discussion was not immediately clear. But he was presumably trying to argue that Wilders, who denounces the religion of Islam as a dangerous “cult” and a “totalitarian ideology,” was somehow a racist for disapproving of a religion. Wilders denies charges of racism and instead focuses his criticism on Islam and its harsh legal system, known as sharia, which critics say calls for executing apostates and other extreme measures incompatible with Western civilization.

Then Zeid broadened his attack to include the elected leaders and top political candidates in multiple countries — slamming their political supporters and home populations as dangerous racists by extension. “What Mr. Wilders shares in common with Mr. Trump, Mr. Orban, Mr. Zeman, Mr. [Norbert] Hofer [of Austria], Mr. [Robert] Fico [of Slovakia], Madame [Marine] Le Pen [of the anti-European Union National Front], Mr. Farage, he also shares with Da’esh,” Zeid claimed, with Da’esh being one of the terms used to refer to ISIS.

After blatantly equating the “nationalist demagogues” with ISIS, he then claimed he was not equating them with ISIS. Then he went back to equating them with ISIS again, saying that, “in its mode of communication, its use of half-truths and oversimplification, the propaganda of Da’esh uses tactics similar to those of the populists.” He also called the Western leaders he hates “cheats” for allegedly promoting a return to a “perfect past” that did not exist even before open borders. In what may be an unprecedented attack by a senior UN official, Zeid then went on to suggest, without mentioning the name, that his targets were basically like Hitler, and that their “weaponized” “xenophobia” and “bigotry” can “descend rapidly into colossal violence.”

Continuing with his strange bid to equate Western leaders he dislikes with ISIS and National Socialism, Zeid claimed they all wanted to go back to the past where “sunlit fields are settled by peoples united by ethnicity or religion – living peacefully in isolation, pilots of their fate, free of crime, foreign influence and war.” It was not immediately clear how he arrived at the conclusion that ISIS or anyone else was seeking such a past — especially considering the military history of Islamic expansion. The implication was clear, though: Anyone who opposes open-borders and mass-migration, which Hungarian leader Orban called a bid by a "criminal conspiracy" to destroy the West, Chritendom, and nation-states, must be evil and should be crushed.

Zeid then proceeded to claim that Westerners were inherently prejudiced — especially those who disagree with open borders, globalism, and other elements of the increasingly extreme UN agenda. “The formula is therefore simple: make people, already nervous, feel terrible, and then emphasize it’s all because of a group, lying within, foreign and menacing,” he said, adding that those he disagrees with were relying on the “natural prejudice of people,” as opposed to the ostensibly benevolent UN leaders. “Inflame and quench, repeat many times over, until anxiety has been hardened into hatred.”

Before Zeid's bizarre and almost certainly illegal attack on self-government, the democratic process in UN member states, and hundreds of millions of European and American voters tired of open borders and UN globalism, his office also took aim at another UN nemesis: human freedom in the economic realm. “Do you believe that free market [sic] fundamentalism—the belief in the infallibility of free market economic policies—is an urgent threat?” the official “UN Human Rights” Twitter account asked the world.

Again, analysts and watchdogs were baffled, with UN Watch chief Hillel Neuer blasting the “loony tweet” and the UN office's silence on the ongoing and very real horrors of socialism. “While millions of people are suffering from genocide, sexual slavery and starvation, it is far from clear why the UN would instead focus its attention on unidentifiable ‘urgent threats’, let alone on economic subjects about which it has neither competence nor expertise,” he said after the bizarre tweet, which has since been deleted.

Neuer also pointed to socialist-ruled Venezuela, which sits on the UN “Human Rights Council” despite being is in the process of imploding and starving thanks to a lack of free markets and ruthless government oppression. He wondered why the UN has remained silent amid the well-documented human suffering. “The same UN human rights office has failed to issue a single tweet about this past month’s dire human rights crisis in Venezuela, where millions face mass hunger in part due to attacks on the free market,” Neuer said.

Before the UN official's most recent hate-filled tirade — a clear effort to interfere in the self-government of multiple nations by bullying voters — Zeid came under fire for assaulting the God-given rights of Americans. After a reportedly homosexual jihadist shot up a night club in Orlando, the Islamic prince immediately claimed the U.S. government had an “obligation” to impose what he termed “robust gun control.”

In the real world, of course, the opposite is true, as the U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits federal infringement on the unalienable right to keep and bear arms — a right America's founders said was necessary to the security of a free state. Free speech, traditional marriage, parental rights, private schools, and more are also now regular target of the UN's increasingly aggressive pseudo-“human rights” apparatus.

While America's Founders viewed God-given rights as unalienable — and governments as a tool instituted to protect said rights — the UN's own “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” takes the exact opposite approach. Basically, governments grant privileges, and take them away. In Article 29, the controversial document even states explicitly that what the UN misrepresents as your “rights” can “in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” The fake “human rights” can also be “limited by law” under virtually any pretext.

If the UN official really wanted something to lecture on, though, there are plenty of real issues. He could have started by picking practically any member of the UN's discredited “Human Rights Council,” which was re-launched a decade ago after Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi was elected to lead it. Among the rights-violating regimes serving on the “human rights” body are the communist and socialist autocracies oppressing Cuba, mainland China, Bolivia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Namibia, South Africa, Venezuela, and Vietnam.

Plenty of Islamist dictatorships serve on the council, too, including, among others, those ruling Algeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and more. Also on the UN outfit are the rulers of Russia, Macedonia, Kyrgyzstan, Ivory Coast, Congo, Burundi, and more. Just a handful of governments in what could be properly considered truly “free” countries serve on the Council.

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

(The New American never endorses candidates. Our purpose is to inform the electorate and enable them to draw their own conclusions.)

Thank you for joining the discussion at The New American. We value our readers and encourage their participation, but in order to ensure a positive experience for our readership, we have a few guidelines for commenting on articles. If your post does not follow our policy, it will be deleted.

No profanity, racial slurs, direct threats, or threatening language.

No product advertisements.

Please post comments in English.

Please keep your comments on topic with the article. If you wish to comment on another subject, you may search for a relevant article and join or start a discussion there.

Comments that we consider abusive, spammy, off-topic, or harassing will be removed.

If our filtering system detects that you may have violated our policy, your comment will be placed in a queue for moderation. It will then be either approved or deleted. Once your comment is approved, it will then be viewable on the discussion thread.

If you need to report a comment, please flag it and it will be reviewed. Thank you again for being a valued reader of The New American.